Yes yes yes, fine. I also made an intended ratification just to be entirely
sure;
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM James Cook wrote:
> Nitpick: I believe the ratification you quote failed, but D. Margaux's
> earlier Astronomor report did self-ratify, which is just as good.
>
> See the section
Nitpick: I believe the ratification you quote failed, but D. Margaux's
earlier Astronomor report did self-ratify, which is just as good.
See the section "D. Margaux's attempt to ratify without objection
failed." in my judgement of CFJ 3726 at
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3726
On 5/20/2019 1:12 PM, James Cook wrote:
I imagine there must be precedent where old rules defining entities
have been re-enacted, and the players assumed no such entities existed
immediately after the re-enactment. Maybe that's enough to favour the
interpretation that no sectors exist when the
> On May 20, 2019, at 4:31 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at the
> time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
>
> { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules” have
> the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal
> R217 covers this via the precedent initially set in CFJ 1500, asserts
> that words go back to having their common language meaning when not
> defined by the rules. Amusingly, CFJ 1500 covered the exact word
> "politician" (and if we had to respect that ancient and entirely
> different meaning,
On 5/20/2019 10:31 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On 5/20/2019 8:59 AM, James Cook
wrote:>> I can't see anything other than the third>> paragraph of R1586
implying that a generic entity is destroyed when>> its defining rule goes
away, and I don't think it applies in this case>> since this isn't an
On 5/20/2019 8:59 AM, James Cook wrote:
[* the rules must define a switch for it to exist, and a rule with no
force or effect includes no force or effect for its definitions - note
R1586 is only power-2 so this "no force or effect" clause would overrule
R1586. So if the switch doesn't exist
> [* the rules must define a switch for it to exist, and a rule with no
> force or effect includes no force or effect for its definitions - note
> R1586 is only power-2 so this "no force or effect" clause would overrule
> R1586. So if the switch doesn't exist while the rule is suspended, it is
>
Actually, there's an interesting question - if the rules have "no force
or effect" do they continue to define the entities, switches, etc.?
I don't think they do[*], which would mean that when they came back into
force the switches would be "newly created" and in default.
[* the rules must
What if, by ratification, we reset all Spaaace and Politics switches to
their default values before suspending?
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:08 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I vote AGAINST 8177.
> I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote AGAINST 8177.
>
> As commented earlier, I was knocked out of space
10 matches
Mail list logo
